Vehicles of Tomorrow?

Human Factors Guy writes "We've seen here before car manufacturers putting more and more technology into cars, but what are the cars of tomorrow going to look like? Driver monitoring through head and eye tracking (which Volvo is already implementing), Adaptive Cruise Control systems, maybe even pedestrian recognition systems. With cars becoming more like semi-intelligent robots every year, what do /. readers think will and won't make it?"

Comments

Government Regulations

[fadethepolice]

All of this "intelligent" car crap is possible, but in the U.S. is basically illegal. Powered car systems are required to default to operator control in all situations. This is ostensibly to ensure that these futuristic systems do not cause any damage. In truth, the purpose of the automobile in modern U.S. society is not as a transportation device. Transportation was faster and cheaper in Los Angeles BEFORE the invention of the automobile. This is probably true of most very large cities. Of course smaller cities without established public transportation benefit from the automobile. Nevertheless, it is absolutely imperative for the United States government to keep the responsibility of the car in the hands of the driver in order to maintain the voluntary I.D. system represented by the Driver's License. In order to protect the vested interests, and to maintain the loop-hole that allows the government "search and seizure rights" that circumbent the Bill of Rights it is very unlikely that I will be able to get in a Johnny Cab anytime soon. And that sucks.

Electronic controls mean a lot

[ianscot]

Sure, digital spedometers mean about as much as a digital watch -- but the difference between true "electronic controls" and traditional cable ones could be huge.

GM has a concept fuel cell car that uses electric hookups for the controls. It has an interchangeable "skateboard" base partly as a result, and can swap out the rest of the car entirely. Swappable exteriors is a big potential change in the manufacturing and sales model you're using, anyway. I don't necessarily see why something like Subaru's "boxer" engines couldn't get some of those same advantages without giving up the gas engine -- that engine's pretty low in the car, granted not quite as low as the GM chassis.

But yeah -- personally I'm with Al Gore -- the internal combustion engine is a 19th century technology that should be nearing the end of its life for lots of the ways we use it. Take a look at lots of people's lawn mowers spewing white smoke from their little two-cycle engines. That ain't the future. It's only the weight of the existing distribution model for oil and gas that's keeping those things around. (All points Al Gore made in his pointy-headed environuttiness. Gosh, what a kook.)